Vetting
Issue, this build completely lacks a rating page, probably cuz it's not a build. How are we going to get this approved/disapproved? Shireensysop 12:50, 6 July 2007 (CEST)
- More than likely, it's a scripting/whatever error. If a sysop or someone of that nature can just move the script for build vetting here, then it'll be a-ok. --Mgrinshpon (C/T) 22:05, 6 July 2007 (CEST)
But it's not actually a build per see. What I rememd we do, is we simply move this guide to the good pve section so it can be refrenced. Its not a build per see, but an article that can be refrenced. Anyone else have another idea? Shireensysop 09:29, 7 July 2007 (CEST)
Normal discussion
| Archives | ||
Enjoy! --Mgrinshpon (T) 22:20, 14 May 2007 (CEST)
Build namespace or not? This isn't really a build, more of a guide... -- Armond Warblade
{{sysop}} 07:44, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
- It does have builds, I suppose. Could it just be "Invincimonk Guide" in the builds namespace? There isn't a real guides namespace here. --Mgrinshpon (T) 15:09, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
- I was thinking more move it to the main namespace (Invincimonk guide). Shouldn't it be lower case anyway? -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 18:13, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
- I was thinking more move it to the main namespace (Invincimonk guide). Shouldn't it be lower case anyway? -- Armond Warblade
- Want me to? No skin off my back if you do. This should, however, remain in the builds category. --Mgrinshpon (C/T) 19:56, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
- My argument is that, as this is a guide and not an actual build (with the exception of three builds at the very bottom - hardly a large percentage of the article) that it should not be put in the build namespace at all. As I think this decision should be made by more than the two of us, I'm going to go bug a few people to pitch in here. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 19:59, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
- My argument is that, as this is a guide and not an actual build (with the exception of three builds at the very bottom - hardly a large percentage of the article) that it should not be put in the build namespace at all. As I think this decision should be made by more than the two of us, I'm going to go bug a few people to pitch in here. -- Armond Warblade
- Maybe Builds > Guides, such as Builds > Tested (or whatever the outcome will be). Swiftslash \\
20:04, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
- Maybe Builds > Guides, such as Builds > Tested (or whatever the outcome will be). Swiftslash \\
- That's an idea. I know I'm sounding bullish, but why not just put it in the main namespace and add it to Category:Guides or Category:Build guides? -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 20:08, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
- That's an idea. I know I'm sounding bullish, but why not just put it in the main namespace and add it to Category:Guides or Category:Build guides? -- Armond Warblade
- Yeah that was my other idea. Since there are and will be more guides like this(general barrage, interrupt, etc) having all 'guides' on one place makes more sense than putting them all under builds. Since guides and builds are very close in their actual content I think Guides might as well stand under builds, as a subcategory. Swiftslash \\ 20:15, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
- Yeah that was my other idea. Since there are and will be more guides like this(general barrage, interrupt, etc) having all 'guides' on one place makes more sense than putting them all under builds. Since guides and builds are very close in their actual content I think Guides might as well stand under builds, as a subcategory. Swiftslash \\
- Are they similar? I don't see how it's all that similar - one lists attributes and skills, while the other gives suggestions and recommendations based on certain situations and a given goal. I honestly think it would be a bad idea to keep this in the build namespace - gw:Invincible Monk never was. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 20:45, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
- Are they similar? I don't see how it's all that similar - one lists attributes and skills, while the other gives suggestions and recommendations based on certain situations and a given goal. I honestly think it would be a bad idea to keep this in the build namespace - gw:Invincible Monk never was. -- Armond Warblade
They're similar since both give guidelines on how to spec your character and play it. Guides are more general while builds are more in depth. Swiftslash \\ 
21:16, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
- I will vote for creation a new namespace Guide: . Only more and more guides will be needed. But it is IMPORTANT to remmber that build does NOT dublicate a policy. Sliver and HoD based 55 build is not the same thing. GCardinal 23:13, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
- I agree that we should keep guides out of the builds namespace, especially once we have a vetting system in place, it will just complicate things. Everyone remember how long that Dire Pet Guide was kicking around in the untested section on gwiki? As for whether to create a guide namespace or add it to the main namespace and assign it to a category of guides, either solution seems fine with me. -- BrianG 01:00, 16 May 2007 (CEST)
- To me this isn't a big deal. Either solutions will do fine IMO. As long as it looks pretty on the site and is easy to access I could care less to be honest. Swiftslash \\ 01:29, 16 May 2007 (CEST)
- To me this isn't a big deal. Either solutions will do fine IMO. As long as it looks pretty on the site and is easy to access I could care less to be honest. Swiftslash \\
- Let's be honest, what else do we have in the main namespace? Not too much. And if people want to look for a guide quickly, are they going to type in the search box "Guide:Monk guide" or just "monk guide" or "ranger guide" or "invincimonk guide"? And tbh I think the guide namespace looks ugly. >.> -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 01:34, 16 May 2007 (CEST)
- Your issue is easily countered Armond, with redirects. But I think it would be a good way to organize guides by using the "Guide:Monk" or "Guide:55". My only real reasoning behind this is just because it would look more professional, neat and all that. Redirects could be made for someone typeing "guide to monks" to go to "guide:monk" And of course there should be a link on the main page to a guide category.--Sefre File:Sefresig.pngT*C 03:44, 16 May 2007 (CEST)
- Let's be honest, what else do we have in the main namespace? Not too much. And if people want to look for a guide quickly, are they going to type in the search box "Guide:Monk guide" or just "monk guide" or "ranger guide" or "invincimonk guide"? And tbh I think the guide namespace looks ugly. >.> -- Armond Warblade
- Sorry if some of this was commented on above. Just adding my two cents to the discussion.
- On the article, I fully support the idea of guides; but keep them out of the build namespace. As BrianG pointed out, guides really aren't vettable in the same way. I think they can just go into the Main namespace. Categories can do a better job of organizing, no need for a namespace for guides. I don't see any problem using the main namespace for it.
- Within this particular article, I would STRONGLY encourage the community to remove the three builds at the end. Those should be in their own articles, so that they can be trully vetted. The guide can then link to the individual build articles to show the example builds. As it is now, their placement reads to me as a sneaky way to suggest specific builds while bypassing the vetting process for them (whatever vetting process eventually goes into place). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:48, 16 May 2007 (CEST)
- Heh, once again Barek and I agree. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 06:51, 16 May 2007 (CEST)
- Heh, once again Barek and I agree. -- Armond Warblade
- Alright, I have the first two up at Build:Mo/D Mystic 55 so that's that. I'll remove them now and post a link at the bottom. --Mgrinshpon (C/T) 14:53, 16 May 2007 (CEST)
- I'm not sure. Invincimonks builds are common knowledge, and rely on the same basic skillset, so it may be better to just have one article on the concept, than a ton of very similar builds differing by 1-2 skills.
- Maybe to keep it as a build, just one build for each type of Invincimonk but a lot of variants. Otherwise all the "M" section is the same build with slight tweaks.Egon 00:54, 27 May 2007 (CEST)
- The point of this page is to give a general understanding of the invincimonk build theory to those who don't know it, and to act as a springboard to example builds. If certain builds should be merged, that should be brought up on the talk pages of said builds. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 22:20, 27 May 2007 (CEST)
- The point of this page is to give a general understanding of the invincimonk build theory to those who don't know it, and to act as a springboard to example builds. If certain builds should be merged, that should be brought up on the talk pages of said builds. -- Armond Warblade
Heroes and Fun?
Hello, great guide/build(s), my question is there an ideal team build for heroes that is proven to work? Or will all these "team" builds work fine with heroes, or will there have to be a lot of manual hero control? Can the AI perform as needed? Thanks Slipmat 16:20, 18 May 2007 (CEST)
- The reason heroes are not desired is for two reasons: AI sucks (generally, tons of manual managment) and AI takes loot. For multi-person farming, a human is ALWAYS better. --Mgrinshpon (C/T) 16:56, 18 May 2007 (CEST)
- Well, if it's just me and one hero, i don't mind splitting the loot, yet I understand that it would be near impossible. Thanks for the reply Slipmat 03:48, 23 May 2007 (CEST)
- You have to remember- if there's a 2 man farming group, a human will almost always be available if there's a money to be made. There's just very little reason to use a hero but it CAN be done. --Mgrinshpon (C/T) 23:45, 23 May 2007 (CEST)
See Also
why dont you put the 330hp ele? it falls under the invinci catagory.Mgelo21 05:13, 3 July 2007 (CEST)
- Well, it isn't exactly a monk, and this is an invinci-monk guide. Dark Morphon 10:57, 3 July 2007 (CEST)
- shouldn't there at least be a link to the 330hp ele though, i mean you've got the 130hp derv and a 55 SS necro they're not really invinci monks as such in the norm sense, if someone says invinci monk to me I'd think monk primary prof. everything else is just an invinci farmer...Phenaxkian 13:16, 28 July 2007 (CEST)
Soo...
what are we gonna do with this? it's sitting in untested with a testing tag on it. will this be deleted? will guides be updated to have rating pages? blah? - Skakid9090 20:19, 17 July 2007 (CEST)
Name
Firstly, "Guide" shouldn't be capitalized imo. Secondly, does anyone else hear them called "Invinci-Monks" instead of "Invincimonks"? -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 02:24, 24 July 2007 (CEST)